PBS NewsHour full episode November 6, 2019
Articles,  Blog

PBS NewsHour full episode November 6, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: The date is set. The U.S. House of Representatives announces
the first open hearings in the impeachment inquiry, as damning testimony from the top
U.S. diplomat in Ukraine is released to the public. Then: what the returns reveal, after results
pour in from yesterday’s state and local elections. Statehouses are realigned and clues for 2020
begin to emerge. And a conversation with Democratic presidential
hopeful Mayor Pete Buttigieg, with less than three months to go before the first the votes
are cast in the primaries. Plus: the trace of a killer. As at-home DNA testing explodes in popularity,
law enforcement discovers a powerful new tool, one that puts genealogists at the leading
edge of investigation. CECE MOORE, Chief Genetic Genealogist, Parabon
NanoLabs: It was a very odd moment to be looking at the name of the person I believed to be
a killer, and know that I was the only person in the world who probably knew what he had
done, other than himself. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The impeachment inquiry into
President Trump’s actions is about to go public. Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives
announced today that open hearings will begin next Wednesday. Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff touted
the plan. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Those open hearings will
be an opportunity for the American people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves,
to make their own determinations about the credibility of the witnesses, but also to
learn firsthand about the facts of the president’s misconduct. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, House investigators
released another transcript, this one from William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. In it, he spoke of — quote — “a clear understanding”
that President Trump linked military aid for Ukraine to his own political interests. We will discuss all of this right after the
news summary. The day’s other major story: the elections
of 2019. Democrats are mostly smiling over Tuesday’s
returns, including the Kentucky governor’s race. But the Republican in that race is asking
officials to check the math. Amna Nawaz begins our coverage. ®MDNM¯ANDY BESHEAR (D), Kentucky Governor-Elect:
I want to say thank you to our union families that helped make this election happen. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: In Kentucky, last night Democratic
Attorney General Andy Beshear claimed victory in the race to be governor of the Bluegrass
State. He finished about 5,300 votes, less than half
of 1 percent, ahead of incumbent Republican Matt Bevin. The governor today asked that elections officials
check all voting machines for possible errors. GOV. MATT BEVIN (R-KY): We simply want to ensure
that there is integrity in the process. We owe this to the people of Kentucky. AMNA NAWAZ: Bevin is a close ally of President
Trump, who carried Kentucky by 28 points in 2016, and held a rally in the state on Monday
night. Mr. Trump’s campaign manager said in a statement
that — quote — “The president just about dragged Governor Bevin across the finish line.” Beshear, the son of former Governor Steve
Beshear, plunged ahead today, taking up his action plan for education and other issues
in Louisville. ®MDNM¯ANDY BESHEAR: We’re going to start
bring Kentucky together by changing the tone, no more us vs. them, no more this side or
that side. This is about focusing on those core issues,
public education, pensions, health care and jobs, that are good for every single Kentucky
family. AMNA NAWAZ: Despite Bevin’s apparent defeat,
Kentucky Republicans swept the other statewide races, including David (sic) Cameron, who
will be the state’s first black attorney general. Elsewhere, Democrats in Virginia won majorities
in the House of Delegates and Senate for the first time in 25 years. Ghazala Hashmi became the first Muslim elected
to the Virginia Senate, after flipping her suburban Richmond district. GHAZALA HASHMI (D), Virginia State Senator-Elect:
This victory is not mine alone. It belongs to all of you who believed that
we need to make progressive change here in Virginia. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: Democrats said they will use their
new power to pass gun control laws, especially universal background checks, and to approve
the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ®MDNM¯TATE REEVES (R), Mississippi Governor-Elect:
This victory belongs to you. AMNA NAWAZ: Republicans did manage to hold
the Mississippi governor’s mansion. Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves beat Democratic
Attorney General Jim Hood by six points in a state that President Trump carried by 17
points. The president congratulated the night’s GOP
winners in a series of tweets. Tonight, Mr. Trump is holding a rally for
the Republican running for governor in Louisiana. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to take a closer look
at yesterday’s election results, I’m joined by Kyle Kondik. He is the managing editor of Larry Sabato’s
Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Kyle Kondik, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” KYLE KONDIK, University of Virginia: Thanks
for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, these elections were across
the country. We just highlighted three of them just then. But let’s talk about what lessons we can maybe
learn from these results. Where did each party do well and why? KYLE KONDIK: I think that the results were
generally a confirmation of the trend we have been seeing in American politics since 2016
and even before that, in that you have got a lot of affluent, highly educated suburban
areas that are moving towards the Democrats. And we saw that really in Virginia, in that
a lot of the key districts that the Democrats flipped fit that sort of characteristic in
places like Northern Virginia, Greater Richmond, Hampton Roads. On the other hand, Republican strength is
still enduring or getting better in a lot of rural areas or small cities across the
country. Now, Kentucky is an exception to that trend,
in that Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, the Republican, really was very, very unpopular. He tried to nationalize that race, bring in
the president. But he still wasn’t able to get a lot of Trump
voters to vote for him. But I think that’s more of an aberration. Mississippi, I think, is maybe a better confirmation
that here we have a Republican state, you had a pretty strong Democratic challenger,
and yet the Republican still won relatively handily. JUDY WOODRUFF: Maybe the answer to this next
question is just a mirror image of what you just said, Kyle, but what — where did each
party not do well, and why? And are these things they can change? KYLE KONDIK: Let me give you an example from
another state that held elections on Tuesday night, and that was in Southern New Jersey. Jeff Van Drew, a U.S. House member, used to
be a member of the state Senate in New Jersey, Van Drew was one of only two Democrats in
the House not to back the impeachment inquiry last week. And we sort of got a sense as to the reason
why, in that Republicans actually picked up the two state Assembly seats that cover sort
of the general area where Van Drew is from and also the state Senate seat that Van Drew
used to hold. And that’s a — kind of a white working-class
area, Southern New Jersey. That’s the kind of place where Donald Trump
really performed quite well in 2016. And we see a similar — similar kind of results,
in that, even with Trump in the White House, those places may be sort of trending away
from Democrats. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you mentioned the suburbs
a minute ago. Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats did well. Is there something about the kind of suburbs
where Democrats are getting stronger and where they aren’t? KYLE KONDIK: I’ll tell you what. If you look at — if you just look at census
numbers, and you look at whether a place has higher-than-average four-your college attainment
— nationally, the number is about 30 percent, but if a county has 35, 40 percent four-your
college attainment, that’s a place that’s generally trending toward the Democrats. Now, various places are in various sort of
stages of transition. But if you look at that number, it really
tells the tale. And, likewise, if you look at a place that
is overly white, doesn’t have particularly high four-year college attainment, sort of
classified as that white working-class area — Southern New Jersey, I think, is a good
example of that — trending more toward the Republicans. And, look, there are there are lots of varieties
of election results, lots of differences in the outcomes. But those big picture trends, that nationalization
and this split in the white electorate amongst white voters — white voters who have a four-year
degree and those who do not, it’s becoming very prevalent. I mean, American elections, if you go back
40, 50 years, I think they used to be actually a little bit more interesting, in that you
had a lot more regional variation in how the places voted. But a lot of that is falling off, and it’s
being replaced by kind of national political feelings. JUDY WOODRUFF: And if you’re — whether you’re
a Democrat or Republican, and you’re looking closely at what happened yesterday, are you
taking — and you’re running for president — are you taking something away from what
happened? Or are you careful about what you see? KYLE KONDIK: I think you should be careful. And I also think that people who are partisan
should make sure they recognize where the other side is doing well, too. And Pennsylvania is an example, in that we
mentioned that, in some of these local level races, the Democrats did as well as maybe
they had ever done in some suburban Philadelphia places in terms of the county level government
and those places. But at the same time, there are a lot of ancestrally
Democratic places in Western Pennsylvania outside of Pittsburgh where Democrats used
to be strong, and Democrats — and Republicans did pretty well in a lot of those county level
races. And so there are shifts in these key states
in places like Pennsylvania, which — a state that very well could effectively decide the
presidential race. There are positives that both parties can
point to. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about turnout? I hadn’t thought about asking you this. But as I listened to you talk so much of what
happens in an election is who turns out, can we tell anything from an off-year election
like this that just doesn’t get the kind of national attention? KYLE KONDIK: The general trend has been the
turnout has been pretty good in the Trump era. The midterm turnout last year was about 50
percent, which is basically a modern record. And in Virginia, turnout was a lot higher
than you would expect for an off-off-year election, no governor’s race on the ballot. It’s just the state legislative stuff and
local races. So turnout was pretty good in Virginia. Turnout was really good in Kentucky. It was not so good in Mississippi, which actually
might be a little bit of a warning sign for Democrats, in that African-American turnout
wasn’t particularly great. That’s a state that is very polarized by race. Democrats really needed a dynamite African-American
turnout for Democrat Jim Hood to get over the finish line. That did not really materialize for him in
that state. But, broadly speaking, turnout has been pretty
high in these elections since Trump got elected. And I think it’s indicative of a very engaged
electorate. And we could be looking at a record presidential
turnout. Usually, you’re looking at more like 60 percent. But maybe it’s going to be more like 65 percent,
a lot of people coming out of the woodwork. The general assumption is that that’s good
for Democrats, because the Democratic base is less reliable. However, there are lots of potential Trump
voters out there that didn’t show up in 2016 that maybe would show up in 2020, particularly
in some of these key states. So don’t just assume for sure that high turnout
is good for Democrats everywhere. JUDY WOODRUFF: Kyle Kondik, the University
of Virginia, thank you very much. KYLE KONDIK: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Federal
prosecutors accused President Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone of repeatedly lying
to Congress. The defense said that Stone didn’t willfully
mislead lawmakers. The opening statements came in a case stemming
from the Mueller investigation of the Russian government meddling in the 2016 election. Stone is accused of lying to Congress, obstructing
justice and tampering with witnesses. Authorities in Northern Mexico are still hunting
for the drug cartel gunmen who killed nine Americans, including six children. The attack left one SUV burned out and two
others riddled by bullets. Investigators say the killers may have thought
that a rival gang was using the vehicles. Mexico’s president insisted today that they
will not go unpunished. ANDRES MANUEL LOPEZ OBRADOR, Mexican President
(through translator): We will take charge of the investigation and for justice to be
done. We don’t have any limitations on us for informing
the media how it is going. If the U.S. wants to participate, then they
can. JUDY WOODRUFF: Five children who survived
the massacre have been flown to the U.S. for treatment. Iran began injecting uranium gas into centrifuges
tonight at an underground nuclear site. It is Tehran’s latest breach of the 2015 nuclear
accord that the U.S. renounced last year. The centrifuges at the Fordow facility will
enrich the uranium, but Iran says it will be well below weapons-grade. Still, French President Emmanuel Macron, during
a visit to China, warned the move is a mistake. EMMANUEL MACRON, French President (through
translator): For the first time, Iran has decided in an explicit and blunt manner to
leave the agreement, which marks a profound shift, compared to their approach over these
last few weeks. I will have discussions in the coming days
with the Iranians, but we must all collectively face the consequences. JUDY WOODRUFF: Iran argued that its actions
are reversible, if European nations help compensate for losses due to U.S. sanctions. In Iraq, a violent crackdown on anti-government
protests left more dead and wounded today. Demonstrators in Baghdad fled from security
forces who were firing tear gas and live ammunition, injuring at least 27 people. A medic was killed at a second location. To the south, at least two people were killed
overnight in demonstrations in Karbala. Angry new protests erupted in Bolivia overnight,
demanding that President Evo Morales resign after a disputed election. Demonstrators in La Paz called for new elections,
claiming that officials rigged last month’s results to give Morales a fourth term. Riot police used tear gas on the crowd. Back in this country, the U.S. Justice Department
has charged two employees at Twitter with spying for Saudi Arabia. A complaint filed in San Francisco says that
the Saudis paid the pair to dig up personal data on the kingdom’s critics. It says that thousands of accounts were compromised. California announced today that it is investigating
Facebook over alleged privacy violations. The probe began last year after disclosures
that a data mining firm, Cambridge Analytica, gained access to data on 87 million users. The state’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra,
said that he went public today after asking a court to make Facebook answer subpoenas. XAVIER BECERRA (D), California Attorney General:
We have since spring of 2018 been looking into allegations that Facebook violated California
law by, among other things, deceiving users and misrepresenting its privacy practices. Those are serious allegations, when you consider
the personal information that we all supply to Facebook every single day. JUDY WOODRUFF: A number of other states are
also investigating Facebook. A federal judge today blocked the Trump administration’s
so-called conscience rule on abortions. It would let health care workers refuse to
perform abortions and other services on moral and religious grounds. But the judge, in New York, found it is unconstitutional,
in part because it denies funding to hospitals and others that do not observe the rule. The administration is considering an appeal. Voters in Tucson, Arizona, have rejected a
plan to become the state’s first sanctuary city for migrants. The proposal lost overwhelmingly on Tuesday. Elsewhere, Kansas City, Missouri, voters scrapped
a move to rename a historic boulevard after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And in San Francisco, a measure to overturn
a ban on vaping products was defeated. And on Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average lost a fraction to close at 27492. The Nasdaq fell 24 points, and the S&P 500
added two. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the U.S.
House announces dates for the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry; a conversation
with Democratic presidential hopeful Mayor Pete Buttigieg; genetics, genealogy and jurisdiction
— a powerful new tool for solving cold cases is unveiled; and much more. As we reported, next week, the impeachment
inquiry into President Trump will go public. House Democrats’ announcement comes as they
release a transcript of a closed-door deposition that sheds new light on the heart of the impeachment
inquiry, why U.S. military aid to Ukraine was withheld. Here’s Nick Schifrin. NICK SCHIFRIN: Judy, House Democrats today
released the testimony of Bill Taylor. He is the acting
ambassador to Ukraine back in 2006 to 2009, appointed by President George W. Bush. And he served under both parties’ administrations
since the mid 1980s. He’s also a West Point grad and Vietnam vet. And his testimony has been one of the most
important for Democrats, who say it provides the clearest explanation for what President
Trump and his allies were demanding before Ukraine could receive nearly $400 million
of military assistance. And so we turn to our to dynamic duo, Lisa
Desjardins, who’s here with me, Yamiche Alcindor. Welcome to you both. Lisa, let’s start with you. What did we learn today? What are the main takeaways from this testimony? LISA DESJARDINS: All right, let’s break down
these hundreds of pages. As you say, Democrats think he’s the most
important. And one of the reasons is because he was in
meetings where he said it was clear that President Trump was ordering kind of this quid pro quo,
as some see it. Let’s look at that first. He is the — he testified that he was told
that Trump himself ordered that Ukrainian aid money frozen. Again, he was told that secondhand, but he’s
the one testifying to it. He also testifies that very soon after he
took over that position as acting ambassador, he learned of irregular back channels, including
Rudy Giuliani, the president’s attorney, and that diplomats were cut out. This is something he said he hadn’t experienced
before. Why does that matter? He goes into great detail in this testimony
that he sees this has grave consequences. This was not just in a regular back channel
to help the president, but he saw it as something that specifically, in his words, ran counter
to longstanding U.S. goals with Ukraine. He said one of our key pillars of U.S. policy
with Ukraine was being threatened. NICK SCHIFRIN: And really suggesting that
that security assistance was life or death for Ukraine and its future. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. This is a diplomat who spent a lot of time
thinking about this. This is his personal view. But, to him, this was a dramatic situation. NICK SCHIFRIN: So, Yamiche, let’s look at
that. What does that order to freeze military assistance
to Ukraine look like? And, according to Taylor, how specific was
it? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: A careful reading of this
transcript of William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, really shows why Democrats think
of him as a central figure and why he’s going to be one of the first people publicly testifying
in those open hearings as part of this impeachment inquiry. So we had some really clear quotes that I
want to walk people through. The first quote is, he says: “That was my
clear understanding. Security assistance money would not come until
the president” — and that’s the president of Ukraine — “committed to pursue the investigation
of the Bidens.” So that’s really clear there. He goes on to say, “He” — and he’s talking
about the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. “He said that President Trump wanted President
Zelensky,” the president of Ukraine, “in a box by making a public statement about ordering
such investigations.” So, right there, you have William Taylor really
laying out in very clear and short terms what he really believed President Trump was trying
to do. It’s also important to note that Ambassador
Taylor was — really had some pause when it came to taking that post in Ukraine. And he goes on to say this. And I’m going to again read from the transcript:
“I was concerned that there was, I think I put it, a snake pit in Kiev” — that’s the
capital city of Ukraine — “and a snake pit here.” He’s talking about Washington, D.C. “And I was not sure that I could usefully
serve in that context.” And what he’s referring to there is the president’s
personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani making frequent trips to Ukraine, and he says that he was
meeting with people who he didn’t think were credible, and really launching this kind of
shadow campaign, the shadow foreign policy. And he was — he was really concerned that
he wouldn’t be able to work in those conditions. He did, of course, go on to take that post. NICK SCHIFRIN: So, Yamiche, we certainly saw
some Republicans pushing back today, and we saw that in two ways. One, outside of the deposition room, we heard
from lawmakers today. And, also, inside the deposition room, we
got to read what Republican lawyers were asking Taylor . What were those two defenses of the
president? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president has continuously
said that Republicans need to show fierce loyalty to him, and he wants to see them defending
him on social media, on TV and in interviews. So here’s Senator Lindsey Graham today really
defending the president in clear terms. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What I can tell you
about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent. It depends on who you talk to. They seemed to be incapable of forming a quid
pro quo. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: This is really a remarkable
statement coming from a close ally of the president, because he’s essentially saying
that President Trump and U.S. officials carrying out foreign policy when it comes to Ukraine
were simply not organized enough to have a quid pro quo. That’s a new type of defense that we haven’t
seen Republicans making. And Republicans have had to change their messaging
and their defense of the president several times. The other thing Republicans were saying today
was that Ambassador Taylor — again, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine — that he wasn’t
a fact witness, when, in fact, he actually had several conversations with people about
the president’s intent to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. The other thing to note is that Republicans
essentially were saying in the deposition that there were Ukrainian officials targeting
President Trump when he was running, when he was a candidate for president in 2016. And they were asking questions very specifically
about officials that were working for the former president of Ukraine. And that’s important, because the president
told officials in his government that he believed that Ukrainians were trying to take him down. He said that over and over again. So you had Republican lawyers essentially
making that point as they were interviewing William Taylor in the room during the depositions. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa, I just want to turn to
you quickly. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, quickly. NICK SCHIFRIN: What’s next? Open hearings next week. How does that play out? LISA DESJARDINS: Let me just summarize this
verbally for you. Those hearings, we will have two days next
week. And, as you can see, this will pop up right
there. But let’s look quickly. Congress is only supposed to be in session
for a few more weeks after that through December. So I think coming back to me, Nick, let me
just summarize this really quickly. There are so many lawmakers, I want to tell
you, who would like to finish this up by that end date. You saw the 20th, have that House vote by
the 20th. But it’s not clear if they can do it or not. Hopefully, we will get more time to talk about
it another time. And I have a feeling we will. (LAUGHTER) NICK SCHIFRIN: I think we will here. We got lots — lots to go on this. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor,
thanks very much. JUDY WOODRUFF: Recent polls in early voting
states show Pete Buttigieg’s popularity surging among Democratic voters, putting the mayor
of South Bend, Indiana, in the top tier of candidates vying for their party’s nomination
to challenge President Trump a year from now. But with that rising support comes increased
scrutiny. And Mayor Pete Buttigieg joins us now. Mayor Buttigieg, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” It is almost exactly a year away that voters
will be deciding who to support in the general election. But I want to ask you about what happened
yesterday, the so-called off-year elections in several states. Do those tell us anything about 2020? PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
Well, I have always said there is no such thing as a permanently red state. And when you see the governorship of Kentucky
go to a Democratic candidate, when you see the chambers flipping in Virginia and a lot
of other encouraging results, what it tells you is that a lot of people, including people
in the habit of voting for a Republican, are fed up with what the Republican Party is doing
right now, in particular its embrace of a president who goes against every value, progressive
and conservative, that we used to count on from either party. So I think it is very encouraging. It shows us that, if we do a good job of making
sure that we reach out to energize our base and to recruit as many Americans as possible,
including people who maybe have thought of themselves as Republicans in the past, offer
a message and a vision of the future where they see that they can belong, even as we
move to solve these serious issues around health care, climate, the economy and more,
we absolutely can win, not just the White House in 2020, but, crucially, win the Congress
and win across the states too. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, let’s talk about
some of the issues. You mentioned health care. In the last Democratic debate, you were critical
of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for all proposal. And I’m quoting. You said: “No plan has been laid out yet to
explain how that multitrillion-dollar hole is supposed to get filled in.” As you know, in the last few days, she’s given
details for how she says her plan will be paid for. So, my question to you is, do we now know
how her multitrillion-dollar hole is filled in? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, there is a lot of aggressive
math in there about cutting the military, assuming that immigration reform happens,
and getting about a trillion out of that, and some other areas that are controversial
among the economists. The point I’m making is that we don’t need
to spend tens of trillions of dollars in order to address this problem. The idea of my proposal, Medicare for all
who want it, is that we take a version of Medicare and make it available to anybody
who wants in on it, without commanding people to adopt it, if they would prefer their private
plan. It has the advantage of trusting Americans
to make their own decisions, but it also has the major advantage of costing $1.5 trillion,
which, of course, is still an awful lot of money. But it is fully paid for, it is fundable,
without having to go into the more challenging and controversial math being used to explain
a plan that is $20 trillion or $30 trillion or more, depending who you ask. JUDY WOODRUFF: There are critics on the left,
though, who are saying it sounds all well and good, but what if doesn’t do is, it doesn’t
provide coverage for everybody. PETE BUTTIGIEG: It is certainly set up to
make sure that everybody has coverage. It is designed so that nobody falls through
the cracks. And if you are not covered, you — covered
at all, you can actually retroactively be added on our plan. What it does mean is that not everybody is
on the public plan. Look, I think that the Medicare-like public
plan we’re going to create is going to be the best option for most Americans. And if I am I’m right about that, then most
Americans will choose it, until, eventually, it is the single-payer. It will be the glide path to Medicare for
all. But, crucially, if it is the case that, for
some Americans, the private plans they have are better, we’re going to be really glad
we didn’t force them off of those private plans. And, in particular, I have been talking lately
to a lot of union members who are happy with the private plans that they negotiated for,
fought for, sometimes gave wage concessions in order to gain. Why kick them off of those plans, when we
can let people choose? JUDY WOODRUFF: Taxes. You have said that you would return the corporate
rate back up to 35 percent. President Trump put it down near 20 percent. You had said you would consider raising the
marginal tax rate for high earners. You have said a wealth tax makes sense. My question is, do you have numbers you can
give us, percentages? The other Democrats running for president
have put numbers on this. What are yours? PETE BUTTIGIEG: So, more numbers will be forthcoming,
alongside the numbers of what we’re proposing to invest. We’re not doing taxation for its own sake. I’m proposing changes to the tax code to make
sure that my policies are paid for. So, as I put out more policies, you are going
to see more adjustments on the tax side. But in terms of what we have put out already,
for example, that $1.5 trillion I was talking about that is the cost over a decade of my
health care plan, it is fully explained in terms of two things. And the math breaks down basically in these
pieces. About $100 billion of what we need to go toward
it will come from allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. The other 1.4 will come from the rollback
of the corporate rate portion of the Trump corporate tax cuts, tax cuts that mostly went
to line the pockets of those who didn’t need help and, I think, in the long run have done
nothing to make our long-run sources of domestic business competitiveness any better. JUDY WOODRUFF: Several other things I want
to ask you about, Mayor Buttigieg. Iran. You have said you wouldn’t have pulled the
United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, as President Trump did. That has, though, happened many months ago. We now have a very different reality on the
ground. Iran is now talking about uranium enrichment. They’re talking about firing up centrifuges. It’s a different situation now. So what would you do if you are elected president? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, unfortunately, things
have moved in the direction of Iran building out more of their nuclear plan, the exact
thing that the nuclear deal was preventing, which shows just what a foolish move it was
of the Trump administration to wreck the deal. That, unfortunately, also means there is no
going back to the situation that the Obama administration was in when they negotiated
that first deal. But I still think keeping Iran from developing
nuclear weapons capability has to be a major U.S. regional security priority. And that means we’re going to have to structure
another deal that will have the same effect. And we may only be able to get to it incrementally,
because, unfortunately, the deal that was actually doing the job, as the Trump administration
itself certified, was destroyed by this administration. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mayor Buttigieg, your critics
on the left are now saying they think you have been moving to the center from where
you started out this year. They say you have moved to the center on climate
change, on decriminalizing border crossings, raising middle-class taxes and so on. How do you answer that? PETE BUTTIGIEG: My positions are the same. Now, I also think that there is more and more
pressure, especially in the kind of pundit sphere, to try to align all of us on the left-right
spectrum. I just don’t think that that is helpful at
a time like this, when we are starting to see some of the ideological categories get
more and more scrambled. Look, I have led the field in proposals on
bold actions for democratic reform. And, again, my positions haven’t changed. There are other areas where — like health
care, where, I guess, if your top priority is to find the ideologically furthest-out
solution, you are probably going to look to a different candidate than me. But the proposals I am putting forward would
make me the most progressive candidate, the most progressive president in my lifetime. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me finally ask you about
impeachment. As you know, the House of Representatives
announced when they are going to start public hearings. And that’s going to be next week. We are going to hear from the people who are
going to be testifying about what happened with the president and Ukraine. How much do voters on the campaign trail bring
up impeachment with you? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Some. Not a whole lot. Most of the questions that I get are about
things like health care and whether we are going to be able to grow opportunity, overcoming
racial inequality, serving rural America, making sure that prescription drug costs are
under control. But it is definitely on people’s minds, as
it must be. This is a process of utmost gravity, a constitutional
process to hold the president accountable for misconduct that he has already confessed
to in public. There is no escaping it. There is no ignoring it. But, also, as much as possible, we have got
to keep that process separate from the process of partisan politics. And the part that I have a role in as a candidate
for the Democratic nomination for president is to try to make sure that this president
is defeated, if indeed he is the president, in November of next year, or, regardless,
that we get a president who can actually lead this country forward, unite it, and deliver
on the big problems that need solutions right now. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you said if he is the
president. Right now, the Senate majority leader, Mitch
McConnell, says, if the House votes to impeach, the Senate — there are not the votes in the
Senate to convict. But my question to you is, if there were — if
the president were removed from office, why would you be the best Democrat to go up against
your fellow Indianian Mike Pence, who would step up and be the president? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, I know a thing or two
about the vice president, a fellow Hoosier is the term we prefer here in Indiana. And I have got to say that his far-right,
extreme social ideology doesn’t reflect this country, and it doesn’t even reflect this
state. When he tried to push this ideology on our
state, it wasn’t just Democrats, it was a lot of Republicans of conscience who came
together. We all stepped up, and we all pushed back
on that. And as somebody who has now come on board
with a presidency that is an affront, not only to our values, but to his own professed
values, I’m certainly prepared for that debate and would look forward to the opportunity
to lay out the contrasts and show Americans a different kind of solution coming out of
Indiana. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mayor Pete Buttigieg joining
us again, thank you very much. PETE BUTTIGIEG: Good to be with you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: “Broken Justice”
— a preview of the “NewsHour”‘s new podcast; and the attorney who represented the family
of Trayvon Martin on his new book, “Open Season.” So far this year, law enforcement has identified
over 70 suspects using a new technique called genetic genealogy. This is the same tool that detectives in California
last year used to identify the so-called Golden State Killer. In the first of two stories, William Brangham
explains how this tool works and why it’s raised serious privacy concerns. It begins with the murder of a young couple
in Washington state, a case that became the first ever genetic genealogy case to go to
trial. This is part of our Leading Edge series on
science and technology. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In 1987, under the High
Bridge in rural Washington state, a young man named Jay Cook was found murdered. His girlfriend, Tanya Van Cuylenborg, was
found in the woods 60 miles away. She’d been raped and murdered. The only piece of evidence was semen from
an unknown man found on Tanya’s clothes. But it didn’t match anyone, even after police
DNA databases were developed in the following years. Eventually, the case went cold. But 18 years later, Snohomish County Detective
James Scharf picked up the case. He turned to the public for new leads. JAMES SCHARF, Snohomish County Police Detective:
There is a green backpack that the person might have had, a black jacket and a Minolta
camera. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But still nothing. JAMES SCHARF: These were totally innocent
kids, 20 and 18 years old. So this was a case that I really wanted to
solve. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But the person who would
eventually help crack the case wasn’t in law enforcement at all. CeCe Moore is what’s known as a genetic genealogist,
someone who helps people trace their family ancestry. CECE MOORE, Chief Genetic Genealogist, Parabon
NanoLabs: By about 2012, I think it was starting to kind of bubble to the surface with a few
of us that what we’re doing could have law enforcement applications. But it wasn’t time yet. The databases were too small. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But that was all about to
change when commercial DNA testing suddenly went mainstream. WOMAN: Don’t just give a gift. Give them AncestryDNA. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: DNA testing services, like
Ancestry.com and 23andMe, have exploded in popularity. Its estimated that more than 26 million people
have now used companies like this. The process of testing your DNA is actually
pretty simple. You order the kit online. These each cost about $100 each. And then you just spit some saliva into a
tube like this, you mail it in, and, in a few weeks, you get your DNA reports. As millions of people started getting their
DNA results, many of them copied their data into other public Web sites, so they could
better find distant family members. But CeCe Moore realized this wealth of information
could also be used to help solve cold cases. CECE MOORE: We have two matches at the top
of the list that are both sharing about 3 percent of their DNA with the unknown suspect. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: She demonstrated how she
did it in the Cook/Van Cuylenborg case. She took the unknown suspect’s DNA from that
semen sample and compared it to DNA results in the databases. She found two partial matches, people who
were likely the killer’s two second cousins. CECE MOORE: So, if you share 3 percent of
your DNA with someone, then you are most likely second cousins, which means you share great-grandparents. So I am going to build these trees back to
great-grandparents. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: From there, she went back
in time, up the family tree, up to the great-grandparents of those cousins. CECE MOORE: We should find the common ancestor
at this level somewhere with the unknown subject. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: From there, moving down
the family tree, she searched public documents and obituaries to find where these two families
converged. This family would likely be the suspect’s
immediate family his, parents and siblings. CECE MOORE: But, from the DNA, we know it’s
a male, and these are daughters. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This was how she identified
the likely culprit. CECE MOORE: This allows me to zero in on just
this one male as the potential suspect. It was a very odd moment to be looking at
the name of the person I believed to be a killer, and know that I was the only person
in the world who probably knew what he had done, other than himself. But this was a very heavy discovery. And I just wanted to quickly get that name
to Detective Scharf and get that off my shoulders. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For Detective Scharf, this
was a huge lead, but not enough to make an arrest. He’d need actual DNA from the suspect to know
for sure. And so a coffee cup discarded by the suspect
was collected by the police and tested. When the results came back, it was a match. JAMES SCHARF: And I got tears in my eyes,
and then I screamed that, yes, we finally got this case solved. It was just such a wonderful feeling. MAN: Yesterday, we took into custody a 55-year-old
SeaTac man who is suspected of the 1987 murders of Jay Cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This summer, 56-year-old
William Earl Talbott II went on trial for the murder of Jay cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg. Talbott pled not guilty, and never took the
stand. His lawyers argued that the presence of Talbott’s
semen at the crime scene could have been from consensual sex. JON SCOTT, Attorney For William Earl Talbott
II: There is evidence consistent with sexual intercourse, but not injuries associated with
assault. She wasn’t bruised or battered. There wasn’t evidence of sexual assault. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The only definitive thing
linking Talbott to the crime was this DNA match. After two days of deliberation, the jury convicted
Talbott of first-degree murder for both Cook and Van Cuylenborg. He was sentenced to life in prison. This was the first ever trial and conviction
on a case cracked open by genetic genealogy. JAMES SCHARF: Without genetic genealogy, this
case never would have been solved. CeCe Moore did in two hours what 20 or 30
cops couldn’t do in 30 years of working on this case. That’s how powerful genetic genealogy is in
solving crimes. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In our next story, we will
explore the deeper privacy implications of this technique and why some are so concerned
about this new crime-fighting tool. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m William Brangham. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s look at a different part
of the criminal justice system, one that’s the subject of a new podcast we launched today. It’s called “Broken Justice,” and it focuses
on the enormous gaps and problems with the public defender system in the United States. Our five-part series zeros in on how this
has been playing out for decades in Missouri and what it tells us about justice in America. Amna Nawaz and producer Frank Carlson reported
from Missouri for this series. And they join me now. Hello to both of you. Let’s talk about it. So, Amna, how did you get interested in this? What drew you to this particular subject? AMNA NAWAZ: So, Judy, the story of this podcast
actually began right here on the “NewsHour” over a year ago. There was a story reported by our colleague
John Yang. It was produced by Frank back then. And it focused on how public defenders in
Missouri were basically saying, we refuse to take any more cases because we are so overwhelmed. Now, over the course of the next year, Frank
continued to dig, alongside our colleague, podcast producer Vika Aronson. And I tagged along. And they basically pulled an incredible number
of details that painted a very alarming picture of just how bad the backlogs are and how bad
those overloaded with caseloads public defenders find themselves in this situation. So we focus in on Missouri because it is one
of the least — one of the — rather, the worst funded systems in the country, and also
because the public defenders there are among the most overwhelmed. And we met one, a guy named Jeff Esparza,
who told us in his office there just how bad the system is right now. JEFF ESPARZA, Public Defender: I’m at 150
percent of my maximum possible ethical caseload, basically meaning that, if I worked a 60-hour
week, which would be a fairly modest week, for the next year-and-a-half and didn’t get
a single new case, that I could do the bare minimum to ethically represent the clients
I currently serve. FRANK CARLSON: Judy, these public defenders,
they go into this line of work because they want to represent some of the people in society
with the least amount of voice, people who are poor and criminally accused. And what ends up happening, though, is, they
end up with so many cases, that they can’t do the job that they want to do for these
clients. And so they — they’re in this position where
they have to essentially raise the alarm on their own profession, on their own failings. And so that’s one of the first things that
kind of struck me about this story, was how willing public defenders were to say, I’m
failing these clients, and how I can’t do the job under these circumstances. JUDY WOODRUFF: So what happens to these — the
people you highlight in your reporting? What does the criminal justice system do with
them? AMNA NAWAZ: Yes, the ripple effects of those
public defenders being so overwhelmed are far and wide. And one of the most immediate impacts, one
of the harshest impacts, I think we could also say, is longer jail times for the defendants. And that’s before they have ever been tried
or convicted of anything. Imagine if you’re arrested and you’re charged
with a crime, you’re held in jail. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you probably
can’t afford bail either. And because the public defenders are so overwhelmed,
some of those defendants wait in jail for days or weeks or months before the public
defender has the time to turn to their case. And we met someone as part of this podcast
series, a man named Kevin Shepard, who was in exactly that situation. He was arrested, he was charged with a crime,
but his as public defender wasn’t able to turn to his case for 118 days. He spent 118 days in jail. He was already sick when he went in. He got sicker in the overcrowded conditions
there. And, Judy, even though his public defender
eventually got him out, before he could ever have his day in court, Kevin Shepard ended
up passing away. That’s just one way in which it’s impacting
people. FRANK CARLSON: And, Judy, you can think of
that as kind of the acute crisis in the system, the people who are spending day after day,
week after week in jail, like Amna said, not convicted of anything. And that’s a real problem, because these people
are — they’re missing their lives. They’re missing their work. They’re not paying rent. Many are parents. So that’s the acute crisis. But this plays out in a lot of other different
ways. And one other way is the investigation, what
public defenders can’t do for their clients in terms of investigating their cases. And when we first started reporting this story
last year, I learned about a man who is kind of the worst-case scenario of how that can
play out for a defendant in this system. RICKY KIDD, Inmate: I do believe I’m in prison
today because of the Missouri state public defender system. I think, if these things would have been flushed
out years ago, 23 years ago, that we would not be having this conversation today. This notion that somebody is going to get
represented if he’s poor or indigent, and represented properly, that’s — that’s a false
notion. FRANK CARLSON: So, in 1997, Ricky Kidd was
convicted of a double homicide, and he’s always maintained that he had nothing to do with
that crime. But because he had a public defender who was
working in this overworked system, and didn’t have time to investigate his case and represent
him properly, he spent more than two decades trying to prove what he says she should have
proved all along. AMNA NAWAZ: And Ricky’s story is just one
of many that we feature in that podcast. Judy, it’s basically a deep dive into a part
of our criminal justice system that often gets overlooked. But these are the folks on the front lines,
the public defenders. So, episode one is out now. And episodes are going to drop every Wednesday
for the next month. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, as you say, one of many
cases in Missouri, one of many states that have a very similar issue with these public
defenders. FRANK CARLSON: That’s absolutely right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you both very much, Amna
and Frank. FRANK CARLSON: Thank you, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And looking forward to hearing
more of the series. If you want to listen to this podcast, there
are several ways you can download it. You can go to the “Broken Justice” link that
is on our Web site. You can also find episodes on Apple Podcasts,
on Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump has been
called the African-American family’s emergency plan. He has represented the families of black men
and women killed by the police, including cases that inspired the Black Lives Matter
movement and legislation on the use of police body cameras. Yamiche Alcindor is back, and sat down with
Crump to talk about his new work for our Bookshelf. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Trayvon Martin, Michael
Brown, Botham Jean, all unarmed young black men killed in high-profile, racially charged
incidents. Each one of their families turned to the same
civil rights attorney to call out what they believed is a deadly pattern of injustice. His name is Ben Crump. In 2012, Crump gained national prominence
when he took on the case of Trayvon Martin. The 17-year-old was killed in Sanford, Florida. After his death in the fall and the 2014 protests
in Ferguson, Missouri, the Black Lives Matter movement was born. Now Crump has written a new book, “Open Season:
Legalized Genocide of Colored People.” He argues that the killings of many are part
of a racist criminal justice system. Thanks so much, Ben, for joining me. You use the word genocide to describe what’s
happening to African-American men and women across this country. Why use that word? BENJAMIN CRUMP, Author, “Open Season: Legalized
Genocide of Colored People”: Because it is very intentional, that we bring attention
to the way black and brown people are being killed, not just by the bullets in these high-profile
police shootings, but, more poignantly, how they are killing our people, especially our
young people, every day, in every city, in every state, in every courtroom in America,
with these trumped-up felony convictions. In many ways, what I endeavor to do with this
book, “Open Season,” is hold a mirror up to America’s face, so they would have to acknowledge
the hypocrisies, that they would acknowledge that racism and discrimination is part of
the governance of all the institutions that exist in America. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: You came into prominence
when you represented the family of Trayvon Martin. That’s when I met you as a reporter. You write in this book that, when you were
first speaking to the father of Trayvon Martin, you said he wasn’t going to need you. You thought that that George Zimmerman would
be immediately arrested. But he wasn’t. Explain what happened there. BENJAMIN CRUMP: Because, as an officer of
the court — that’s what all attorneys and judges are — we have to believe in the system,
that it will treat each citizen equally. And, Yamiche, you knew about when Trayvon
happened, because you covered it so diligently, that they never intended on arresting the
self-confessed killer of an unarmed teenager who had the proverbial smoking gun in his
hand at the time. But when I had that call from his father,
I just absolutely believed that you have to arrest him because, in our community, people
would get arrested with no evidence at all, on an innuendo or a hunch. And think about all these black men who have
been wrongfully convicted. So I just thought they had to arrest him at
least. And so I told his father, you know, you don’t
need me. Give it a couple of days. But then, a couple of days went by. And he called me back. And he says, “See, attorney Crump, I told
you. They told me they were not going to arrest
him because of this thing called stand your ground.” YAMICHE ALCINDOR: After the death of Michael
Brown, thousands of people gathered to protest in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, but
African-Americans are still being killed by police in these racially charged incidents. What do you make of that? BENJAMIN CRUMP: Well, I think it’s a long
journey to justice. And I think we get progress slowly. But I do see progress. I think about, as tragic as the killing of
Michael Brown was, there was some positive that came out of it. President Obama signed legislation where $50
million were allocated to equip local police agencies with body camera video. And that has made a world of difference for
transparency. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: You also have a chapter
in your book called “Police Don’t Shoot White Men in the Back.” Tell me about that in the situations that
you have seen where white people get treated one way and African-Americans get treated
in another. BENJAMIN CRUMP: You know, I go around the
country speaking at a lot of universities and civic organizations. And one of the things I do, Yamiche, I say,
can you tell me a black or brown person who has been killed by police brutality or shot
in the back by police while they’re running away? And, I mean, immediately, people just start
spouting off names that we have become familiar with through hashtags. And then I say, now tell me the name of a
white person who’s been killed by the police from a shot in the back. And it’s silence, because the police just
don’t do it, or it’s so rare that we don’t know any of their names. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: You’re talking about hypocrisy
in America. You have also experienced and witnessed a
lot of trauma of families that have personally experienced these. How has that affected you and how has that
affected these families? BENJAMIN CRUMP: I still talk to many of them
daily. I was just in Saint Louis doing a book signing. And Michael Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden,
introduced me. And we talk about how it’s been five years,
and, every day, we continue to try to define the legacy of her firstborn son, Michael Brown. Trayvon’s parents — Sybrina is seeking political
office, trying to transform the pain into power, because there is a hole in their heart
that will never be filled. And, in many ways, even though we win the
civil rights lawsuits in federal court, but the cost of prosecutors when they are trying
to prosecute the killers of unarmed people of color, especially police, it’s like a fish-out-of-water
experience. They’re so used to prosecuting and putting
black and brown people in jail, that, when they have to try to dignify them and talk
about them as honorable American citizens, they have a difficult time to do it — doing
it. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: And you write that America
is both a racist nation, but also the greatest nation. How can both of those things be true? And what do you think is the solution to all
of this? BENJAMIN CRUMP: Yes, Yamiche, I think about
we have to make these dead words on paper, no matter how glorious they are, a reality. And the only people who can do that is us. And America is still the greatest country
in the world, where disenfranchised people and marginalized people can change their destiny
in life. It’s just that we have to make everybody have
an opportunity to the American dream, not just a few. That means black and brown people, too. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the book is “Open
Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People.” Ben Crump, thanks so much for being here. BENJAMIN CRUMP: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: And thank you, Yamiche. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *